Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Null-Move: Difference between R = 2 and R = 3 in action

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 23:39:38 07/12/02

Go up one level in this thread

On July 13, 2002 at 02:22:00, Omid David wrote:

>On July 13, 2002 at 02:07:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>I still do not understand which positions you talk about which R=2
>>is finding and R=3 isn't.
>I read your other post, that's also my point: Although at fixed depth, R=2 is
>much better than R=3 (see also "adaptive null-move pruning" Heinz 1999), in
>practice R=3 performs about the same as R=2 since on many occasions it finds the
>correct move one ply later with lower search cost.

By the way, if you have not found Vincent's post on double null move you should
look it up.  It is a clear win for sure.

This page took 0.11 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.